Log in

CLASS 46


Now in its twelfth year, Class 46 is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice. This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.

Want to receive Class 46 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.

Who we all are...
Anthonia Ghalamkarizadeh
Birgit Clark
Blog Administrator
Christian Tenkhoff
Fidel Porcuna
Gino Van Roeyen
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Stefan Schröter
Tomasz Rychlicki
Yvonne Onomor
THURSDAY, 3 JULY 2014
General Court: Sani v. Hani, llani and Rani

In Case T-523/12, the General Court had to review the following opposition:

Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Poland)

Rani Refreshments FZCO (United Arab Emirates) –earlier CTM’s

1) and 2)

3)

Classes 29 , 30 and 32

Classes 29, 30 and 32

Both the Opposition Division and Board of Appeal found that the mark applied for and the first and second earlier marks were not visually or conceptually similar and that the marks had a lower than average degree of aural similarity owing to the differences between their first syllables. In view of the relevant public’s average degree of attention and the visual, aural and conceptual differences between the signs in question, there was no likelihood of confusion according to Article 8(1) b) CTMR.

The Opponent appealed before the General Court only criticising the reasoning by which the BoA reached the conclusion that the mark applied for and the earlier trade marks had a lower than average degree of aural similarity and complaining of the error made in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion as a result of that conclusion. Rani claimed that the Arabic word elements of the two earlier trade marks are not, as a general rule, pronounced in the relevant territory, so the word elements of the signs are similar since they end with the same letter combination ‘ani’, and the first letter of the mark applied for (the letter ‘s’) is not a strong consonant.

However, the GC dismissed the appeal and found that the relevant public will focus on the first syllable of each of the signs which begin with a different letter and the first syllable has a very different sound : ‘lla’, ‘ha’ or ‘ra’ v. ‘sa’. Thus, the aural similarity is weak and the mere fact that there is a certain degree of aural similarity is not sufficient justification, in itself, for a finding that there is a likelihood of confusion for the purposes of Article8(1)(b) of CTMR.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 12.28
Tags: General court, likelihood of confusion, rani, hani, llani, rani,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA3775
Reader Comments: 0
Post a Comment


MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.


The Class 46 Archive






 

 

 

 

 

 


CONTACT

info@marques.org
+44 (0)116 2747355
+44 (0)116 2747365
POST ADDRESS

Unit Q, Troon Way Business Centre
Humberstone Lane, Leicester
LE4 9HA

EMAIL

Ingrid de Groot
Internal Relations Officer
ingrid.de.groot@marques.org
Alessandra Romeo
External Relations Officer
aromeo@marques.org
James Nurton
Newsletter Editor
editor@marques.org
Robert Harrison
Webmaster
robertharrison@marques.org
BLOGS

Signup for our blogs.
Headlines delivered to your inbox